Talk:Kanjuro
Kanjuro's new cameo Go to this link and you'll find that Kanjuro's cameo appearance has been officially changed. Should we use this new image or not? Anima40 (talk) 07:19, March 2, 2014 (UTC) Probably. If Oda changed it for the volume, then we should probably change it to. Check with an admin first though. Montblanc Noland (talk) 13:59, March 2, 2014 (UTC) Keep what we have up there, but add a special part about this new image to his appearance section. Based on the outline, it looks like Oda added a helmet or hat of some kind to the image in the volume. It is one of the larger detail changes he's made. 06:02, March 3, 2014 (UTC) How do you create a site refernce in an article pg? I'm asking so I can cite this source. 420pirate (talk) 07:24, March 3, 2014 (UTC) Just do it in the title. Call the one in the volume something like "Kanjuro Volume 73 Change" or something like that. 07:27, March 3, 2014 (UTC) Ryunosuke Should we give Ryunosuke its own article? I broached the idea on chat and it was met with support, but it could be controversial since it's also technically a technique. This is unique, because a Devil Fruit created a living creature with its own name (the only similar thing I can think of is Doppelman, but that's just Moriah's shadow. I personally support giving its own page. Thoughts? 23:27, October 22, 2015 (UTC) It's a technique. Don't overthink it. We would have to give every animal Kanjuro draws its own page. Just mention that the Straw Hats nicknamed the "Climbing Dragon" Ryunosuke. 23:33, October 22, 2015 (UTC) Do we have the page for Doppelman though? We don't, so what's the difference? I'm just trying to be consistent. Can we maybe talk about ryunosuke in Kanjuro's DF page? (Yes we don't have it yet, but when we will) Would that be an equivalent solution? Ryunosuke is pretty different from Doppelman, which doesn't deserve its own page. Doppelman is on of Moriah's techniques: it is basically a "shadow-clone" of Moriah and the technique's name is Doppelman. It displays no differences in personality or character from the original, Moriah himself. Ryunosuke, while also a technique, was originally called "Climbing Dragon" by Kanjuro, giving it a unique name. It also demonstrated a personality and was treated like an actual character by the Straw Hats. It has a unique personality from its originator, Kanjuro, and (if considered a character) has a different history. I honestly see both sides. It is still a named technique and has only appeared once. Who knows, maybe Kanjuro will draw it again. If it maintains the same personality and a memory of the initial climb in a later appearance, it should get a page. At this point, its still debatable. 01:15, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Nightmare Luffy was more of a character than a simple technique, and we still don't have a page for that. So I'd have to say no for now. 01:26, October 23, 2015 (UTC) If we had a page for his DF, I'd say make him a subsection of that, but since it's unnamed, I don't know. The most comparable cases for him are probably Zombies from Moriah (but ones whose shadown owners are unknown) or objects that ate Devil Fruits. We have pages for both those things, which makes me lean towards making Ryunosuke his own article. At the very least we should have a redirect to a section here in case people do want to search for Ryunosuke as a character. 04:57, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Once his fruit is named, mention him in there as creation or something. 05:29, October 23, 2015 (UTC) It's not even an official name. It's just something Luffy came up with on the fly. It's not like every climbing dragon Kanjuro draws will be named Ryunosuke. 07:05, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Well, Magellan's Hydra is a "technique creature" that seems to have some level of sentience, and it is infamous throughout Impel Down. We still don't have a page for it. So why Ryunosuke (for now)? 07:14, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Like Doppelmen, Hydra is the original name of the technique and has no personality. My vote is to wait for either another appearance or a databook that treats it like a character to make a page. For now, we can mention the name in the technique description and make note that Kanjuro's ability gives his creations personalities as if they were truly alive beings. The name think is like "Ucy"; its a nickname made by Luffy that we can't make official until stated in a databook or other official source. Let's wait. 09:55, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Just have it as a DF technique. Kanjuro will probably continue drawing creatures and it would be silly if we had to give each a separate page. It was basically a gag anyway. 10:24, October 23, 2015 (UTC) The difference with Hydra is that Hydra is the generic name for that creature, like Escaping Sparrow and Climbing Dragon. Ryunosuke has its own name and has expressed a life inside of it, which goes beyond other techniques 12:16, October 23, 2015 (UTC) Also, Ryuunosuke is the third reason EVER to make Robin cry. That should be reason enough to give him some recognition. Anyway, I see the zombies as a closer parallel to Ryuunosuke. Although a zombie derives its behavior from the shadow, they develop into a character of their own. We have separate pages for each zombie characters. Ryuunosuke defintiely received more attention than a lot of things we have pages for. Also, another point of argue his 'sentience' is the fact that despite how he was drawn as 'climbing dragon', the whole climbing process was based on its own efforts and fueled by cheers from Luffy and the others. He was visibly trying his best from the encouragement after being on the verge of giving up. In general, I think he deserves a page. I know consistency and such is important, but this is a wiki providing information. I think enough readers of One Piece would be moved/intrigued/interested enough to want to see a page for Ryuunosuke. Woohoot (talk) 09:09, October 25, 2015 (UTC) You are talking as if we don't have any other way to talk about ryuunosuke but creating his own page... we can cover him in the fruit technicques and for robin, that goes on robin page and has nothing to do with ryuunosuke. I don't see the cons of not having the ryuunosuke page and actually how do you even categorize him? If we make a page for Ryuunosuke then that means we have to make a page for every named technique. SeaTerror (talk) 16:52, October 25, 2015 (UTC) That would be the logic if we named it "Climbing Dragon" but we're not, as Ryunosuke has his own name and history. 18:52, October 25, 2015 (UTC) It's a drawing with the purpose to climb. It climbed and then disappeared because it's not an actual living creature, just a DF technique. "Ryunosuke" was also just something they came up with on the spot, like "Ucy" which we don't consider an official name. 19:52, October 25, 2015 (UTC) Seems like we're in a clear agreement to not do a page. Where do people stand on a redirect? 20:20, October 25, 2015 (UTC) Technique page when the Devil Fruit is named. Nothing for now. SeaTerror (talk) 21:03, October 25, 2015 (UTC) A redirect can't hurt. 21:09, October 25, 2015 (UTC) I made the redirect to Kanjuro's DF section. 02:35, November 30, 2015 (UTC) Ryunosuke Trivia Since apparently this still hasn't been resolved, might as well open a discussion. Basically, IP wants to add a bit of trivia that states "Ryunosuke is voiced by Yamaguchi Ryunosuke, which is the name of Yamaguchi Kappei (Usopp's voice actor)'s son". The lengthy sentence infers speculation (that Ryunosuke is voiced by Kappei's son) but technically doesn't make any actual speculative statements, so I think it's fine if we throw it in the article. Discuss. 22:26, September 4, 2016 (UTC) Given that it's stating a VA like it's fact without evidence I would definitely want a source for this one. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:28, September 4, 2016 (UTC) Length version is speculation and the current version leaves any speculation out. Not to mention it literally wouldn't matter anyway since the lengthy version has nothing to do with the actual character. SeaTerror (talk) 22:32, September 4, 2016 (UTC) @Kaido- IP sources anime credit roll, where Ryunosuke's VA is stated as Yamaguchi Ryunosuke 23:10, September 4, 2016 (UTC) Oh gee, look at that. Totally not trivia worthy or anything. But actual speculation like "Monet is dead" is A-OK. If you're going to be high-and-mighty about things, you could at least make an effort to be consistent. 10:12, September 7, 2016 (UTC) Hi Galaxy. SeaTerror (talk) 21:31, September 7, 2016 (UTC) Wrong MO, I'm afraid. Try again; this time see if you can stay on topic. Bonus points if you can actually point out the speculation in the text of my edit, like you've been completely unable to do in our discussion and your edit warring so far. 09:23, September 8, 2016 (UTC) Let's not get salty here. It's not actual speculation, with that I agree. Though does it have much impact/relevance? If you guys really want it on there, sure. Let's see what others think. 14:12, September 11, 2016 (UTC) Yeah sure add it. 15:25, September 11, 2016 (UTC) It is actually. But besides that nobody has been able to point out what it has to do with the character. Let's add Luffy looks like Kim Kardashian because they both have black hair. SeaTerror (talk) 18:52, September 11, 2016 (UTC) The statement leads to a speculative thought, but everything actually written is 100% fact. Therefore, it's not actual speculation. Here's an example. 1. "I saw a purple squirrel today." 2. "Really? A purple squirrel stole my lunch yesterday." It's speculation to assume that it's both the same squirrel yes, but both sentences contain facts, and nowhere is actually stated the animal is the same. 18:59, September 11, 2016 (UTC) Which doesn't mean anything. Tell me what it has to do with the character. SeaTerror (talk) 19:06, September 11, 2016 (UTC) Ryunosuke redirects here, therefore all information about Ryunosuke goes here. When Kanjuro's Devil Fruit is named, the trivia will appear on that page instead. Not an issue. 20:44, September 11, 2016 (UTC) Yet that's not the point. Tell me what the seiyuu's son's name has to do with the character. Did Oda decide to randomly name it after him? SeaTerror (talk) 20:54, September 11, 2016 (UTC) What on earth does Oda have to do with anime trivia? 09:20, September 12, 2016 (UTC) So now you're saying that Toei named a character after a seiyuu's son that Oda named? SeaTerror (talk) 10:52, September 12, 2016 (UTC) No-one said anything about either being named after the other except you. Again, where are you going with this? 11:35, September 12, 2016 (UTC) There is a lot of confusion, so let's be clear. There are two statements and two assumptions about this trivia: 1. Ryunosuke the dragon is voiced by someone named Yamaguchi Ryunosuke. Fact. 2. Yamaguchi Kappei, Usopp's voice actor, has a son named Yamaguchi Ryunosuke. Fact. 3. Ryunosuke the dragon is voiced by Yamaguchi Kappei's son. Speculation. 4. Ryunosuke the dragon was named after one or the other Yamaguchi Ryunosuke. Speculation. The original question was, how do you state 1 and 2 without suggestioning 3 and 4? But since then, this conversation has evolved into a lot of things that really don't make much sense. So let's stay on track. 11:55, September 12, 2016 (UTC) I don't see how the trivia implies 4. The character's a dragon, and Luffy and others gave him a name that is basically Draco or McDragon. Same with the cat and tiger that Kanjuro drew later. Point three has already been addressed above. So really, all it comes down to is that ST's out of actual arguments and is just stalling like always. Shouldn't come as a surprise. 13:28, September 12, 2016 (UTC) The point has already been repeated many times. Sounds like you have a comprehension problem. Ryu already covered it anyway. The only thing that matters is who voiced the character. We don't need extra junk that has nothing to do with the character. SeaTerror (talk) 18:13, September 12, 2016 (UTC) A week has passed and the options I see are either "speculation" or "not trivia worthy". Can we close this? Barto mafia family (talk) 14:29, September 19, 2016 (UTC) Majority's in favor (me, JOP, AoD, Awa), ST's the only one saying those things. I agree it should be closed, but in the other direction. ST's failed to convince the majority that his subjective opinion that it's not trivia-worthy should be accepted. 21:12, September 19, 2016 (UTC) There is no majority and nobody has even acknowledged the argument that the 2nd part of the trivia has nothing to do with the character. Not even you did. SeaTerror (talk) 21:58, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :That's not an argument, it's an unsubstantiated opinion. If you want a response, try writing something longer than three lines (other than quoting yourself) and put some actual thought into it for once. Looking at your recent edits, your attitude to trivia in general is clear, however that doesn't give you the right to edit war and throw your weight around. I want to draw your attention to One_Piece_Wiki:Guidebook/Editing_Conduct#Personal_Conduct as well. 09:19, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Not to put words in his mouth, but I don't think what AoD said is in favor. The fact that a purple squirrel was seen twice doesn't mean it's the same purple squirrel, just like the fact there is two Yamaguchi Ryunosuke means it's the same person. So it's 3 (AWC, JOP, and Awe) vs. 4 (ST, AoD, Ryu, and myself). Barto mafia family (talk) 22:43, September 19, 2016 (UTC) :That's the exact definition of putting words in his mouth. Ryu's too. I don't know how attempting to define the issues in question counts as a vote against. Also, I suggest you actually read the thread, since the question of whether it's actually him or not is irrelevant. 09:19, September 20, 2016 (UTC) ::I am neither for nor against. Just wanted to clarify a few things, something that Ryu sewed further on. 14:54, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Don't label me against, Barto. I am not against, I'm only in this thread clear up confusion. These talk page debates have been getting particularly hostile in the last couple of weeks. 11:54, September 20, 2016 (UTC) It isn't an opinion at all. Besides the burden of proof is on you to prove it wrong. I already showed how you shouldn't put unrelated things in a trivia section. You have not once showed how a seiyuu's son's name has anything to do with the character itself other than sharing the name. That's not trivia worthy. Especially when it's a common Japanese name anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 11:59, September 20, 2016 (UTC) :Gentlemen. In the vacuum of no decision, any decision is attractive. Let's just poll this and get it over and done with. : 13:22, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Every single sentence in that is unsubstantiated. "We don't need extra junk that has nothing to do with the character." is your personal opinion on what constitutes trivia. I don't have the burden of proof of showing whether your personal opinion is rightly or wrongly held. Nor is your personal opinion any more valid than my own, or anyone else's. If you read the link I posted you would have seen that the wiki isn't about a single person's vision of what it 'should' be. I didn't know you were an expert on how common Japanese names were either. The only Japanese person here is in favor of adding it. Having a poll will just add more people making snap gut judgements without actually properly discussing the matter, which is just what ST wants - he can just bring all the same friends that stop him getting banned all the time to vote on his side. So no, I don't trust that system at all. It's also the reason why he's just been stalling and not making proper arguments, which wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. 14:27, September 20, 2016 (UTC) :As banned as I think ST should be, you don't actually get to decide whether we poll this or not. : 14:33, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Some people understand the relevance the statements might have, some don't. It's all personal opinion, as the AWC said. Also, it's wrong to think our polling system includes popularity on article discussion, especially concerning ST. In fact, ST probably has had the most opposers in wikia history. Everyone here is entitled to his own point of view. As for the poll, I don't see any other way. This is just a war between opinions and I can't think of any consensus that could be made. If the AWC has any personal objections/problems, by all means, they can message me (privately or not, their choice). 14:54, September 20, 2016 (UTC) ^100% agree with AoD. This discussion is also starting to get a little too salty so might as well poll and get the issue over with. 20:24, September 20, 2016 (UTC) A poll isn't going to help if the core issues aren't actually discussed first. SeaTerror (talk) 20:31, September 20, 2016 (UTC) Poll it. This isn't going anywhere otherwise. 20:33, September 20, 2016 (UTC) The thing is, ST, there's not much to be discussed about when it comes to views of perspective. All it comes down to is: "A harmless coincidence that could be shown in the trivia" vs "it doesn't have anything to do with the article internally". What more do you want to see discussed? 20:36, September 20, 2016 (UTC) The core issues would be what it has to do with the character. We don't put Luffy looks like Kim Kardashian because they both have black hair on his article. SeaTerror (talk) 20:41, September 20, 2016 (UTC) :You just proved my point. No, that comparison won't ever change someone's mind, btw, but I appreciate the attempt. 20:45, September 20, 2016 (UTC)